Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
Next: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely youcan't be serious.
From: mpc755 on 13 Feb 2010 15:53 On Feb 13, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > > > > > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without > > > > > > > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether. > > > > > > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > surrounding matter and aether. > > > > > > > I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > > > > > > matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with > > > > > > the matter? Did it disappear? > > > > > > Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and > > > > > is no longer mass. > > > > > > There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved. > > > > > > Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and > > > > > some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference > > > > > by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same > > > > > number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that > > > > > mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself > > > > > that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some > > > > > stupid aether just to have some place to hide it. > > > > > When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into > > > > account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. > > > > When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it. > > > Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass > > > measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is > > > included in the measurement. > > > You can't measure the mass of the aether. What you can measure is the > > state of the aether. > > Ah, so you can't measure the mass to confirm experimentally that it is > conserved. Yet you claim you KNOW this is true anyway, without > experimental verification. > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an ice cube melts in the water does the mass associated with the ice cube still exist? > > > > For example, let's say you existed in water and it was physically > > impossible for you to detect or measure the water directly. All you > > could do was measure the state of the water based upon the state of > > the matter in the water. The matter in the water is an ice cube. As > > the ice cube melts it will give off energy and the mass of the ice > > cube will diminish but the overall mass in existence remains the same. > > You measure the state of the water by measuring the energy and the > > state of the ice cube. > >
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 16:23 On Feb 13, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > > > > > > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without > > > > > > > > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether. > > > > > > > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > surrounding matter and aether. > > > > > > > > I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > > > > > > > matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with > > > > > > > the matter? Did it disappear? > > > > > > > Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and > > > > > > is no longer mass. > > > > > > > There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved. > > > > > > > Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and > > > > > > some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference > > > > > > by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same > > > > > > number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that > > > > > > mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself > > > > > > that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some > > > > > > stupid aether just to have some place to hide it. > > > > > > When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into > > > > > account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. > > > > > When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it. > > > > Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass > > > > measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is > > > > included in the measurement. > > > > You can't measure the mass of the aether. What you can measure is the > > > state of the aether. > > > Ah, so you can't measure the mass to confirm experimentally that it is > > conserved. Yet you claim you KNOW this is true anyway, without > > experimental verification. > > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an > ice cube melts in the water does the mass associated with the ice cube > still exist? But I *can* detect water directly. If I could not detect water, then I would not have any experimental basis for believing that the mass from the ice was conserved. None. Our laws are based on what we *measure*, not on what we imagine might be there. We can imagine invisible gremlins, and then all sorts of interesting physical laws are possible -- like conservation of hat size, conservation of genes, conservation of gremlin-killing boogeymen. But since they are all presuming things about unmeasurable stuff, they are worthless scientifically. Worthless, worthless, worthless. Just like you! > > > > > > For example, let's say you existed in water and it was physically > > > impossible for you to detect or measure the water directly. All you > > > could do was measure the state of the water based upon the state of > > > the matter in the water. The matter in the water is an ice cube. As > > > the ice cube melts it will give off energy and the mass of the ice > > > cube will diminish but the overall mass in existence remains the same.. > > > You measure the state of the water by measuring the energy and the > > > state of the ice cube. > >
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 16:25 On Feb 13, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 3:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. > > > > > > > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. > > > > > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to > > > > > measure it with. > > > > > Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though > > > > measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass > > > > that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be > > > > measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but > > > > you CHOOSE to believe it anyway. > > > > You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy. > > > Energy is not mass. The measured mass is changed. > > > > Mass is > > > conserved in nature. > > > No, it's not. There's not a lick of experimental evidence that says > > that mass is conserved. > > You believe it is anyway, but you want to hide it somewhere where it > > can't be measured. > > > > In E=mc^2, the energy is the effect the matter > > > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > > > You CHOOSE to believe the mass 'becomes' energy. > > > I CHOOSE to believe the physical transformation of matter to energy is > > > energy. > > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an > ice cube melted does the mass associated with the ice cube still > exist? You mean if I hypothetically supposed something about not being able to detect something I can detect, and then I hypothetically supposed this undetectable water existed anyway, would I be able to hypothetically surmise that the hypothetically conserved mass was associated with the hypothetically supposed water that I hypothetically cannot detect? > > > > > Do you believe in invisible gremlins too? > > > > > > As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state > > > > > of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its > > > > > connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring > > > > > places. > > > > > > When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass > > > > > in existence in the universe remains constant. > > > > > > > Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but > > > > > > where you can still choose to believe it still exists? > > > > > > > > It still exists, as > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Feb 2010 16:34 On Feb 13, 4:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > > > > > > > > > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > > > > > > > > > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > > > > > > > > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without > > > > > > > > > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether. > > > > > > > > > Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > > > > > > > > surrounding matter and aether. > > > > > > > > > I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > > > > > > > > matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with > > > > > > > > the matter? Did it disappear? > > > > > > > > Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and > > > > > > > is no longer mass. > > > > > > > > There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved. > > > > > > > > Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and > > > > > > > some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference > > > > > > > by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same > > > > > > > number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that > > > > > > > mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself > > > > > > > that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some > > > > > > > stupid aether just to have some place to hide it. > > > > > > > When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into > > > > > > account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. > > > > > > When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it. > > > > > Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass > > > > > measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is > > > > > included in the measurement. > > > > > You can't measure the mass of the aether. What you can measure is the > > > > state of the aether. > > > > Ah, so you can't measure the mass to confirm experimentally that it is > > > conserved. Yet you claim you KNOW this is true anyway, without > > > experimental verification. > > > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an > > ice cube melts in the water does the mass associated with the ice cube > > still exist? > > But I *can* detect water directly. > If I could not detect water, then I would not have any experimental > basis for believing that the mass from the ice was conserved. None. You do have a basis for believing the mass still exists because of the energy. The water consists of many particles of ice. When one particle of ice melts the energy is the physical effect the ice transitioning liquid water has on the surrounding water and ice. That's what energy is. Matter transitioning to aether. > Our laws are based on what we *measure*, not on what we imagine might > be there. > We can imagine invisible gremlins, and then all sorts of interesting > physical laws are possible -- like conservation of hat size, > conservation of genes, conservation of gremlin-killing boogeymen. But > since they are all presuming things about unmeasurable stuff, they are > worthless scientifically. Worthless, worthless, worthless. > > Just like you! > > > > > > > For example, let's say you existed in water and it was physically > > > > impossible for you to detect or measure the water directly. All you > > > > could do was measure the state of the water based upon the state of > > > > the matter in the water. The matter in the water is an ice cube. As > > > > the ice cube melts it will give off energy and the mass of the ice > > > > cube will diminish but the overall mass in existence remains the same. > > > > You measure the state of the water by measuring the energy and the > > > > state of the ice cube. > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Feb 2010 16:38
On Feb 13, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. > > > > > > > > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. > > > > > > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to > > > > > > measure it with. > > > > > > Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though > > > > > measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass > > > > > that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be > > > > > measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but > > > > > you CHOOSE to believe it anyway. > > > > > You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy. > > > > Energy is not mass. The measured mass is changed. > > > > > Mass is > > > > conserved in nature. > > > > No, it's not. There's not a lick of experimental evidence that says > > > that mass is conserved. > > > You believe it is anyway, but you want to hide it somewhere where it > > > can't be measured. > > > > > In E=mc^2, the energy is the effect the matter > > > > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > > > > You CHOOSE to believe the mass 'becomes' energy. > > > > I CHOOSE to believe the physical transformation of matter to energy is > > > > energy. > > > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an > > ice cube melted does the mass associated with the ice cube still > > exist? > > You mean if I hypothetically supposed something about not being able > to detect something I can detect, and then I hypothetically supposed > this undetectable water existed anyway, would I be able to > hypothetically surmise that the hypothetically conserved mass was > associated with the hypothetically supposed water that I > hypothetically cannot detect? > > The water consists of many particles of ice. When one of the ice particles melts, the effect this transition of the ice has on the neighboring ice and water is energy. There are physical effects occurring. The physical effects of the ice transitioning to liquid water is energy. The aether consists of particles of matter. When the matter transitions to aether, the effect this transition of matter to aether has on the neighboring matter and water is energy. There are physical effects occurring. The physical effects of the matter transitioning to aether is energy. |